Ram Avatar Singh Jadon vs State of MP and Others

They are heard. The petitioner has filed this public interest litigation praying for the following reliefs:

(i) That the respondents No. 1 to 9 be directed to take action against the respondents No. 10 and 11 who have committed large scale of financial irregularities and illegalities of more than 18 crore rupees and be further directed to initiate legal proceedings as per provisions of law.

(ii) That the respondents No. 1 to 9 be further directed to recover the amount of loss caused to the government exchequer from the respondents No. 10 and 11 and be further directed to attach the property of respondents No. 10 and 11 in accordance with law.

(iii) That the respondents No. 1 to 9 be further directed to take action against respondents No. 10 and 11 on the basis of material available on record and be further directed not to allow them to work in the field till completion of investigation or filing of progress report.

(iv) That the respondents No. 8 and 9 be directed to proceed the matter in accordance with law and to file challan before the competent court in respect of conduct of respondents No. 10 and 11.

(v) That any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the costs throughout may also be granted.

As per the petitioner, respondents No. 10 and 11 have committed some irregularities and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies constituted a committee to enquire into the allegations against respondents No. 10 and 11 and the committee in its report has prima facie found the allegations to be true upto some extent.

Counsel for respondents 10 and 11 have denied the allegations.

It is further submitted that a report has already been lodged at Police Station Bhind pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 8 submits that the Lokayukta has jurisdiction to enquire into the allegations of corruption against the office bearers and employees of the cooperative societies/cooperative banks. Hence, if any complaint is made, the authorities may consider the same in accordance with law.

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. and Others, has held in regard to maintainability of a public interest litigation against allegations of corruption against the officers or employees if Lokayukta has jurisdiction to look into the matter as follows:

(7) The apex court in the case of Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. and Another Vs. C.K. Rajan and Others, wherein the allegations were made regarding mismanagement of the affairs of the Guruvayoor temple by a devotee, found that the affairs of the temple are governed by the provisions of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978, wherein forums have been created for ventilating the grievances of the affected persons. IN that backdrop it was observed in para 60 of the judgment that ordinarily, therefore, such forums should be moved at the first instance. It was further held that the State Government should be asked to look into the grievances of the aggrieved devotees, both as parens patriae as also in discharge of its statutory duties.

In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court facts of the case in hand may be examined. The allegations made by the petitioner required to be enquired into in the appropriate forum, wherein detailed enquiry would be conducted as per provisions prescribed in the Act and an opportunity of hearing would be afforded to the respondent no. 5. Therefore, the petitioner should avail the remedy provided under the Act.

For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has remedy to agitate his grievances under the provisions of the Act. We have no doubt that in the event the petitioner approaches the approacher authority, as indicated above, by making complaint as per the prescribed procedure within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the same would be examined and necessary action would be taken in accordance with law expeditiously.

In view of the judgment of the Division Bench, in our opinion, if the petitioner has any grievance, he can move the Lokayukta in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance or he can submit his case before the investigating officer of the Police Station Bhind where the FIR is registered. However, at present, merits of the allegations could not be enquired into in this PIL. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition (PIL) is disposed of.